Permaban Ltd

[2012] APO 49

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Permaban Ltd [2012] APO 49

Patent Application:                   2011221391

Title:Screed Rail

Patent Applicant:  Permaban Ltd

Delegate:  E J Knock

Decision Date:  9 May 2012

Catchwords:  PATENTS – examiner objection – case management of divisional applications – no response by applicant – application refused

Representation:  Patent applicant:  Trevor Dredge, Intellepro, Brisbane

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application:                   2011221391   

Title:Screed Rail

Patent Applicant:  Permaban Ltd

Date of Decision:  9 May 2012

DECISION

I refuse the application.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Patent application 2011221391 was filed by Permaban Ltd as a divisional of application 2006328116 on 8 September 2011.  An examination report issued on 24 November 2011, raising one objection.  In line with the Commissioner's approach to case management of divisionals, the report included the following objection:

“Objection(s) 1 of my report are based on the same grounds objected to in the examination of patent application 2006328116. Please note that if a response overcoming this objection is not filed within two months of the date of this report the Commissioner will consider whether to direct amendment of the application under section 107 or proceed to refuse the application under section 49(2) of the Act. If you intend to proceed under either of these provisions the Commissioner will notify you in writing and indicate the time and place you may be heard on the matter. In deciding the matter the Commissioner will consider all possible grounds of objection to the application not only those identified above.

Note that the objection is based upon the EP IPER mailed 2 May 2007 which in the light of citation EP 1389648 A and WO 2005 103412 A the claims 1 to 8 and 13 are considered not novel and claims 1 to 13 lack an inventive step.”

As no reply was received, the Commissioner issued a hearing notice in the following terms:

"The examination report of 24 November 2011 raised an objection(s) equivalent to that in the parent application.  In line with our approach to case management of divisionals, you were given two months to respond to that report.  As no response has been received, the matter will now be set for hearing.

I believe that it is possible to hear this matter on the basis of written submissions, so I allow you one (1) month from the date of this letter to file any submissions you wish.  Your submissions should address the ground(s) of objection identified in the examination report.  Once your submissions have been received, or alternatively if no submissions are received, the matter will be passed to a hearing officer to issue a written decision.  Please note that it is possible for the Commissioner to refuse the application or direct amendment.

Alternatively, if you file amendments overcoming the objection(s) within this period, the Commissioner will not proceed with the hearing.  However, if the amendments do not fully overcome the objection(s), you will be advised of this fact and the hearing may continue as above."

The applicant has not provided any submissions.

The objection

I have reviewed the examiner's report, and I agree that there are appropriately raised objections.  The applicant has chosen not to defend the application.  They have provided no submissions disputing the objections, and have not proposed any amendment to attempt to overcome the objections.  In these circumstances there are no reasonable prospects of the applicant overcoming the objections.  The application should be refused.

E J Knock
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents